Challenges in embedding numeracy throughout the curriculum in three Queensland secondary schools

Teacher identity as an embedder-of-numeracy: identifying ways to support teachers to promote numeracy learning across the curriculum

“…This dilemma continues in current curriculum documents (SA DBE, 2011) which identify five key elements of Mathematical Literacy: elementary mathematical content, authentic real-life contexts, solving familiar and unfamiliar problems, decision making and communication, and use of integrated content and/or skills. A similar situation existed in one of the schools in the study of Carter et al (2015) in Australia where school administrators viewed numeracy as mathematics in life-related contexts, but a Grade 8 subject called Literacy and Numeracy was designed to assist students to overcome difficulties with mathematics. Even though the interpretation of numeracy by the school administrators in the latter study was not as rich as that envisioned for Mathematical Literacy in South Africa, these mixed messages about the meaning of numeracy suggest that a danger of promoting numeracy learning through specialised mathematics subjects may be that in practice there could be a perception that such subjects are concerned with basic mathematics for low achievers.…”

“…An across the curriculum has shown promise (Geiger, Goos, & Forgasz, 2015) but there are two potential issues: (1) teachers of subjects other than mathematics may see numeracy as something extra to be added to an already crowded curriculum (e.g., Carter et al, 2015), and (2) boundary objects (Star and Greisemer, 1989) that exist in subjects across the curriculum may present challenges for teachers who do not have formal training in mathematics. Although there is some evidence in the literature that illustrates the importance of numeracy to subject learning (see Section 2.1.3) and on the use of boundary objects to promote numeracy learning (see Section 2.1.4), such evidence is scant.…”

“…Teachers with a narrower personal conception of numeracy may be less able to employ pedagogical approaches that effectively exploit the numeracy learning opportunities in the subjects they teach because they do not recognise the other dimensions. Such interpretations of numeracy could arise if numeracy is associated with subjects that focus on basic mathematical skills (e.g., Carter et al, 2015) or as the capacity to successfully answer questions on international and national student assessments (e.g., PISA and NAPLAN).…”

“…However, in some jurisdictions there are testing regimes for numeracy that are used as measures of accountability. This can place pressure on school administrators and subsequently teachers to ensure that student performance on such testing is maintained at levels that are considered acceptable, thus creating tension between what curriculum authorities intend and the practices that take place in classrooms (e.g., Carter et al, 2015). For example, the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2014a) promotes an across the curriculum approach to numeracy that requires teachers to explicitly attend to numeracy in the subjects they teach but provides little support to assist teachers to be able to do this effectively (Geiger et al, 2013;Goos et al, 2012).…”

“…There is the belief among some teachers that numeracy is the responsibility of mathematics teachers (e.g., Thornton & Hogan, 2004) and, by implication, synonymous with mathematics. Numeracy can also be seen as the application of mathematics in a variety of contexts without the explicit inclusion of the other dimensions (e.g., Carter et al, 2015). Moreover, national numeracy testing (NAPLAN) may result in promoting numeracy learning being associated with teaching to these tests (e.g., G. Thomson & Harbaugh, 2013).…”